Ancestors at War

By Brianna DeRosa

      I watched part of the PBS documentary series, “Civil Warriors: 1- Families at War”. It was an astonishing look at the way the Civil War effected average citizens of the time. Ancestors of those involved in the war, Union or Confederate,  took the time to dig deeper and rediscover the truths and secrets of the war that lay within letters, diaries, and historical evidence.
       Roger Fisk, ancestor of Union soldier Wilbur Fisk, traveled to his family’s farmhouse to discover more writings of his great, great grandfather.  He found that Wilbur Fisk was a young, vibrant Union soldier who was raised in a family that full-heartily opposed slavery and thought of all men as equal, non-exclusive by race. In many of our class discussions this semester, we spoke about how the civil war is often thought of as a war fought to end slavery, and Wilbur Fisk’s ideals support that. But in Wilbur’s writing, one can see that this is not usually the case. Fisk’s letters reveal that a majority of the Union soldiers were incredibly racist and were a part of the war effort solely to preserve the Union.  As far as the idea of soldiers fighting to abolish slavery, Wilbur states in one of his letters, “I verily believe if such a declaration was made today, majority would be inclined to lay down their arms and quit the service in disgust” (PBS). I found this interesting
because it shows that history remolds true historical events, and the Civil War was not about slavery for most of the civilians involved.
       Another personal story I found interesting was the journey of Cornelia Grandberry to find out more about the life of her southern, aristocratic great, great grandmother, Cornelia McDonald. Cornelia McDonald kept extensive diaries throughout the start of the war in which her husband, Angus, and two stepsons fought. McDonald was strongly supportive of the confederacy, owning a large number of slaves and believing Virginia to be it’s own bountiful entity separate from the Union. When writing about the North in one journal entry she says, “we would not have peace with them if we had our slaves” (PBS). This notion confused me slightly, as Wilbur Fisk had made it clear that the Union men were not fighting against slavery, but fighting only for the preservation of the Union. This began to make me think that slavery was a component of what caused the Civil War, but the Confederacy felt more sensitive towards the issue because they had property at stake. In this way, the depiction of
the Civil War being a war fought over slavery rings partially true, especially to those in the South. The issue of freeing slaves may have been glorified in the time proceeding the war, but the freedom of slaves was a very real threat to many aristocrats in the South.
       Cornelia McDonald also gives a very realistic depiction of how the Civil War effected citizens other than the soldiers, which is very relevant to the books we have read in class. Her diary gives many snapshots of life during the war, similar to those in Hospital Sketches and Memoranda During the War, but from a fresh perspective.  After the first major battle of the war and the first major victory on the Confederate side, McDonald writes, “we did not begin to understand the horrors of our victory until Tuesday evening,” as she describes the slow arrival of 2,000 confederate casualties to be buried at home (PBS). She also describes other changes in a civilians life throughout the war, such as soldiers pillaging her home and making camp in her yard, and the escape of many of her slaves. I also thought it was interesting when Cornelia Grandberry met with the great, great, grandson of David Hunter Strother’s, who had been a “traitor” of sorts to the McDonald family. Strothers
turned to the Union side in the heat of the war, betraying his close friends, the Mcdonalds, and all others who were proud Confederates in Virginia. The decedents seemed to have some bad blood toward each other, although it’s hard to tell how much of that was forced to add “dramatic effect” to the documentary.
       This documentary uncovered many details about life during the civil war from a multitude of lifestyles. I think this documentary brings up the point of whether or not it is our civil duty to learn about the past, and how far one should journey to discover their ancestry. This documentary proved that a wealth of knowledge can be uncovered by tracking one’s roots and digging to find secrets left behind. First hand documentation from the war, such as letters and diaries, serve as one of the only ways to experience the events of the civil war without filter. We have discussed in class numerous times that history can be distorted over time to serve an agenda to current society, but if people retrace their ancestry, they have the power to discover pure, undistorted truths about the past.

Works Cited:

Public Broadcasting System. Civil Warriors: 1- Families at War. DocumentariesTV. History Documentaries, 2011. 25 April 2011. Web.

Nature Versus Nurture

By Elizabeth Song

A prominent anthropologist Ashley Montagu said, “With the exception of the instinctoid reactions infants to sudden withdrawals of support and to sudden loud noised, the human being is entirely instinct less. Man is man because he has no instincts, because everything he is and has become he has learned from his culture, from the man-made part of the environment, from other human beings” (Pinker 8). The natures of human beings are the genetics of a person and the nurture is the environment one is surrounded by. The result of a child is influenced by not only the family members, but also the environment as in school, friends, and the area one lives in. Genetics do contribute to the future of a person like disease or disorders that can be pasted down by generations. However, “environmental effects occur over development and physiological time scale” (Robinson 397). Surroundings effect not only the present but also the future of the body and the mind. Family members and the environment around a person can influence the outcome of a child as Albert Samples’ life and Emma’s life changed due to outside influences in Racehoss Big Emma’s Boy and in past research.

“Environments can be considered as extended phenotypes, reflecting genetic differences between individuals as they select, modify, and construct their own experience of the world” (Plomin and Asbury 92). The environment can change how a child acts and how they grow into the person they become. Albert Sample’s living arrangements were not the healthiest. He lived his with his mother, Emma and did not get to live the normal life of a child. He went to school when it was convenient for him and Emma until he dropped out due to all the fighting during class and his feelings towards school. He was being whipped till he cried, but Sample, also known as Racehoss, refused to cry and stabbed his teacher in the thigh and fled (Sample 100). He dropped out of school and never received proper education and Emma did not care at all and just said, “If you wanna grow up wit no schoolin lak me, thas yo bizness” (Sample 100). Emma did not encourage him to go back to school to lead a better life than hers but just told him if he wants to be like her that is fine with her. Education is not inheritable as well as religion, culture, political beliefs, and language (Pinker 15). Education could have made a difference in his life as he could have gotten a proper job after school, but deciding to drop out decreased his chance of living a better life than his mother, Emma. Emma did not care about the decisions Racehoss made and let him choose whatever lifestyle he desired at such a young age. Emma, as his mother should have supported him and helped him make his choices about life, but instead lived life that was most convenient for her.

Family members also influence the outcome of a child. “Family characteristics as the level of intellectual stimulation in a home, parents’ emotional expressiveness, their disciplining styles, parental beliefs about politics and religion, family structure, parental use of legal and illegal drugs, and many other rearing variables all generally operate on children as shared influences” (Rowe 4). Racehoss did not grow up in the most functional household. “Two things our house was never without, dice and men” (Sample 53). He grew up with only his mother being the constant person in his life, as men came in and out of his life. Throughout Racehoss Big Emma’s Boy, there would be a different man that stayed over all the time. Albert never had a stable father like figure throughout his life. The only thing he ever knew was how to throw dice and cheat in life at a young age. He went to the store to buy alcohol for Emma and had to watch the window for cops coming while still a child. Emma abused him constantly, whipping him, telling lies to the police about him stealing, going to his school and abusing him in front of his classmates and teacher, as well as even making Albert ask for permission to go to the bathroom. Racehoss grew up in an abusive environment as did Emma. Emma witnessed her mother being killed by her father (Sample 6) as well as Racehoss witnessed the violence between Emma and Salvador (Sample 87). Violence seemed to be consistent factor as Albert grew up just like how Emma grew up. Emma ran off once, leaving him behind. She eventually came back, but he left after being fed up with the abuse from Emma. When he returned to Longview, he was in the army. However, his future still consisted of gambling and running away. Albert grew up only learning about gambling and drinking from Emma. Therefore, even when he was in the army, he continued to set up crap tables and take money from other members of the army by cheating (Sample 136). His life is not much different than Emma’s exemplifying how family members influence the outcome of one’s child as he only saw a certain perspective of life as he grew up.

Not only does the environment of a human being influence their future, but also the people surrounding an individual can make a difference. A consistently positive atmosphere can result in a different perspective of life as one who grew up in conflicting environment. The proper education can result in an appropriate job for one’s self. A person can choose to change one’s life and not follow in the footsteps of parents. Without the correct nurturing, a human being’s future can change for better or worst. Due to having a negative atmosphere growing up because of Albert’s unpleasant environment and cruel mother, Emma, it resulted in his poor and difficult life in the future.

Works Cited

Pinker, Steven. “Why Nature & Nurture Won’t Go Away.” Daedalus. Vol. 133. MIT. 5-17. Web. 24 Apr. 2011. JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027940.

Robinson, Gene E. “Beyond Nature and Nurture.” Science. Vol. 304. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 397-99. Web. 24 Apr. 2011. JSTOR. http:///www.jstor.org/stable/3836657.

Sample, Albert Race. Racehoss: Big Emma’s Boy. New York: Ballantine, 1986. Print.

Plomin, Robert, and Kathryn Asbury. “Nature and Nurture: Genetic and Environmental Influences on Behavior.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 600. Sage Publications. 86-98. Web. 24 Apr. 2011. JSTOR. http:///www.jstor.org/stable/25046112.

Rowe, David C. The Limits of Family Influence: Genes, Experience, and Behavior. New York: Division of Guilford Publications, 1994. Web. 24 Apr. 2011. http://books.google.com/books?id=xcB8R9DVOUwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=he            limits+of+family+influence:+genes,+experience,+and+behavior&hl=en&ei=FN2sT            OUBoOx0QGR3u2wCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC            Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Selective Pensions

By Shannon Young

Unlike the soldiers of the Civil War, Walt Whitman served our country through philanthropy. He was without a doubt a helpful man, actively doing good deeds to help people far and wide. However, as a healthy man of the time, his absence on the battlefield did not settle well with some. The question we are left with is whether or not Whitman’s altruism overpowered his cowardice. Opposing views have clashed—seeing his work in the hospitals as either worthy of praise and pension like the soldiers or unworthy of praise and pension like the nurses.

During the Civil War the idea of a woman nurse gaining a pension was preposterous. So why should Whitman deserve one? This view of Whitman exploits him as unworthy of praise and pension. Although, according to Thomas Wentworth Higginson in “Women and Men: War Pensions for Women,” Whitman was a man of “particularly fine physique,” he did not serve on the battlefield. By not serving the army in the war, Higginson views the poet as selfish and cowardly; keeping his potential to help the war struggle on the battlefield confined to the hospitals helping nurse the fallen soldiers back to health. With some women yearning to go to war but not being able to because of their gender, men like Whitman were viewed by a number of people as ungrateful when they let the opportunity pass them by. Whitman was viewed by some on the level of a woman, which at the time would have been disgraceful to the poet due to the white man’s superiority at the time. The morality of the case proposing a pension for Whitman is questioned because despite his unmanly job in the war, other people focus only on his helpful actions in the hospital.

The stories of Whitman’s travels have captivated audiences since the Civil War because of his selflessness. William Douglas O’Connor, author of “The Good Gray Poet: a Vindication” would be the first to fight for a pension for the poet claiming that he was “in the spirit of Christ.” Mesmerized by Whitman’s good deeds, O’Connor not only compares him to this religious savior but also describes him as “soothing, healing, restoring… never tiring, constant, vigilant, [and] faithful.” This array of compliments extols Whitman for his actions every day from daybreak to bed time, traveling from hospital to hospital, bed to bed helping the hopeless and consoling the people soldiers left behind as they passed away. This perspective commends Whitman’s selflessness and generosity with praise, respect, and with that, a proposition for a pension.

The question of whether or not Whitman deserves a pension is debatable because of the perspectives taken on his different actions. While the people who believe Whitman was cowardly and doesn’t deserve a pension focus on the war as a whole and his absence on the battlefield, those who believe Whitman deserves the praise and pension look past the fact that he did not fight and focus solely on his actions within the hospitals. There is no doubt that he helped the masses and touched the hearts of thousands of citizens; there is only question of whether or not what he did do to help was worthy of what the soldiers deserved after the war.
Works Cited:
Higginson, Thomas W. “Women and Men: War Pensions for Women.” 1887. Web. 13 Mar. 2011.
O’Connor, William D. “The Good Gray Poet: A Vindication.” [Washington D.C.] 2 Sept. 1865. Web. 13 Mar. 2011.
Whitman, Walt, and Peter Coviello. Memoranda during the War. New York: Oxford UP, 2004. Print.

Blog Topic Suggestions

*Look at contemporary Civil War works of art or photography and post pictures of the images with descriptions of your opinion on their significance. http://www.civilwarfineart.com/

*Research controversial topics from the Civil War and make an argument for your side of the disputable issue.

*Research the connections between traumatic childhood experiences and the consequences it has on one’s adulthood using Racehoss Big Emma’s Boy as an example.

The Real Relationship between Whitman and Lincoln

By Bethany Derflinger

“It is strange that history has linked so closely the names of Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln who, so far as is known, were never introduced and never exchanged a word,” (qt. in Brown).

As this quote suggests, Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln have always been seen as close to society; a closeness that has been explored through many of Walt Whitman’s writings. But after careful inspection of these writings, however, one may start to doubt the actual bond between the two men based merely upon this. Instead of the normal relationship that exists between acquaintances, consisting of conversation and true personal knowledge, their “friendship” seemed to have consisted more of mere glances and exaggerated poetry. Therefore, Whitman and Lincoln may have been seen as close through Whitman’s writings, but because the way Whitman describes Lincoln differs from each account, it is probable to question how the bond between them really formed.

First, a project of comparing Whitman’s newspaper articles, which were partly concerned with his view of Lincoln, shed some light on some of the differences between Whitman’s encounters. On August 12, 1863, in the Washington Hot Season New York Times, Walt Whitman writes, “The sight is a significant one. He always has a company of twenty-five or thirty cavalry, with sabres drawn, and held up right over their shoulders,” (Washington). With this quote, Whitman seems to portray the president’s ride as an entrance to be more celebrated, or a big thing to see. He also describes Lincoln as always being surrounded by soldiers, with a humble look and a pretty easy-going personality. But while that may seem like a valid observation of the President, his later articles give a different characterization.

The next selection, written on March 16, 1865, called the Last Hours of Congress New York Times, exemplifies a major difference from Whitman’s first description of Lincoln. He starts the excerpt with,

The President very quietly rode down to the Capital in his own carriage, by himself, on a sharp trot…” then later, “He was in his plain two-horse barouche, and looked very much worn and tired; the lines indeed, of vast responsibilities, intricate questions, and demands of life and death, cut deeper than ever upon his dark brown face; yet all the old goodness, tenderness, sadness, and canny shrewdness, underneath the furrows (The Last).

This second selection shows a completely different side to Lincoln. Instead of the great scene he once was described as being in, he is now portrayed as a plain, worn out man, who spends all his time concerned with the problems of the nation.

After reading these two quotes, it’s hard to believe that Whitman and Lincoln had more of a relationship than quick glances. I believe that this is significant, because within these two excerpts, Walt Whitman paints a completely different portrait of his sights of Abraham Lincoln. How can he ride in always with soldiers and sabers and greatness, when he is also depicted as riding alone and later with civilians in a plain way? It makes one wonder if he ever really truly had these experiences, or whether he just wrote what he thought they would be like.

In addition, Whitman wrote a compelling view of Lincoln’s assassination in his book Memoranda. But in reality, Whitman was never there, and instead heard the story from his friend Doyle (Loving). In the passage he states,

Through the general hum following the stage pause, with the change of positions, came the muffled sound of a pistol-shot, which not one-hundredth part of the audience heard at the time–and yet a moment’s hush–somehow, surely, a vague startled thrill–and then, through the ornamented, draperied, starr’d and striped spaceway of the President’s box, a sudden figure, a man, raises himself with hands and feet, stands a moment on the railing, leaps below to the stage, (a distance of perhaps fourteen or fifteen feet,) falls out of position, catching his boot-heel in the copious drapery, (the American flag,) falls on one knee, quickly recovers himself, rises as if nothing had happen’d… (Whitman 85-86).

As one can see, this passage shows tremendous amounts of detail and implied observation. But how can his description be dense with imagery if he himself was never there?

In the end, Whitman and Lincoln did have a strong bond, but it was not through the ways in which Whitman wrote about. Instead, I believe that Whitman greatly admired Lincoln, and whenever he wrote about him, his most poetical descriptions were used. This can be a reason as to why the descriptions of Lincoln were always different, due to the fact that Whitman wanted to describe every aspect of Lincoln in the best way that he could. In conclusion, Whitman and Lincoln seemed to have a strong bond due to Whitman’s admiration, rather than first-hand encounters.

 

Works Cited

Brown, Clarence A. “Walt Whitman and Lincoln.” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society (1908-1984) 47.2 (1954): 176-184. Print.

Loving, Jerome. Walt Whitman: The Song of Himself. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.

Whitman, Walt. Memoranda During the War. Ed. Peter Coviello. New York: Oxford UP, 2006. Print. 85-86.

Whitman, Walt. “The Last Hours at Congress.” New York Times. 6 Mar. 1865. Web. 7 Mar. 2011.

Whitman, Walt. “Washington in the Hot Season,” New York Times, 16 Aug.1863. Web. 7 Mar. 2011.